This New York Times article shows pupil growth in public school districts, claiming it is a better way to compare school effectiveness:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/05/upshot/a-better-way-to-compare-public-schools.html

Schools which appear to be fostering the most growth, with less wealth, may be worth studying.

So absolutely, Chicago schools showed growth - from way below average to (mostly) below average. Admittedly my mind is still dull from anaesthesia but I am not sure why this is supposed to be impressive. Are things really that bad?

Thanks for posting the article! This was totally fun to read and look up my district. A little less fun to realize that it is considered shockingly good progress to advance 5-6 years in only FIVE years. Sad to see how many districts do not make 5 years of progress in five years. Looks to be book-markable for any one who is relocating as some districts that are quite close together look to have different starting points, different end points, and, perhaps, different growth rates.

Yes, madeinuk, I'm glad you mentioned Chicago...
- 3rd grade is 1.3 years below average
- 8th grade is 0.4 years below average
- 6 years growth in 5 years places these students at average

What I find more intriguing are the bubbles which are both high achieving and lower SES, such as Johnson City, TN, where 8th graders are 1.8 years above average.



Great observations, brilliantcp.

Yes

Thanks for sharing the article, I found it very interesting. I have always known that high SES districts do better (and people tend to ignore the fact that they are high SES and just look at the outcomes). The district we left was on the affluent side of things but made less than 5 years progress in 5 years. Given the high class sizes, chaos in the administration, budget problems, etc. I can see why. I would like to know what the successful districts are doing to make the progress that they are, but the article didn't give too much information. I think it's also important to remember that there is a limit to how much standardized test scores can tell us about what kids are really learning. I opt my kids out because the tests only measure grade level standards and for my son in particular, the test would never pick up how high functioning he is in math because the test doesn't measure that knowledge. So, interesting info, but just part of the picture.

I was worried that the tests being used had inappropriate ceilings for this type of analysis, but according to their data it's possible to score several years ahead in 3rd and 8th grade.

I'd be interested to see how much variation there is year to year, to see if there's a bit of a regression toward the mean type of effect going on.

I checked 2 local school districts. One is known for having great gifted education, but never allowing grade skips (I suppose the theory is that the gifted accommodations are so good that no one would need a skip.) The other allows skips. The one that never allows skips ranked higher in this assessment. It's probably not a big contributing factor, but it's one of those details that's easy to overlook in this type of analysis.